Watergate took over two years to reach the point of Nixon's resignation, at which point formal impeachment proceedings had barely started. And that was with the opposing party in charge of both houses of congress. If there's anything to this, it will take a while before it is resolved.

Patrick Fitzgerald was made Special Counsel in the investigation of who leaked to the press that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. That was on December 30, 2003. He is said to have learned within months (before or after) of getting the assignment that Richard Armitage was the leaker (and Karl Rove as well I believe). And yet that thing dragged on for over three years with neither Armitage or Rove being charged and only Scooter Libby getting convicted for lying under oath. Any time I see Lawrence O'Donnell on TV I remember him saying multiple times with tremendous conviction back in those days that Karl Rove was going to be "frog-marched out of the White House".

OK, I have a question. Say there's no evidence of Trump messing with the election or working with the Russians, or any of that stuff that people have been going crazy over. Undoubtedly, there will still be speculation and all sorts of anonymous sources full of mysterious references to documents that we will never see, but let's say that there is no actual evidence.

Now say that despite this lack of evidence, political machines manage to turn these accusation into an impeachment and boot Trump from office (this is hypothetical, so don't ask me to explain how).

At that point, do you celebrate Trump being gone? Or do you protest the corrupt and underhanded method by which it happened?

OK, I have a question. Say there's no evidence of Trump messing with the election or working with the Russians, or any of that stuff that people have been going crazy over. Undoubtedly, there will still be speculation and all sorts of anonymous sources full of mysterious references to documents that we will never see, but let's say that there is no actual evidence.

Now say that despite this lack of evidence, political machines manage to turn these accusation into an impeachment and boot Trump from office (this is hypothetical, so don't ask me to explain how).

At that point, do you celebrate Trump being gone? Or do you protest the corrupt and underhanded method by which it happened?

I heard a guy interviewed on the TV this morning - Congressman Brad Sherman - who may be preparing for your scenario.. He said something like "Even when there is collusion, it's very hard to prove collusion. Especially since people in congress will routinely talk to people in foreign governments." And then he mentioned Jeff Sessions (one of only a few people in Congress to endorse Trump before he got the nomination) having had contacts with Russians.

OK, I have a question. Say there's no evidence of Trump messing with the election or working with the Russians, or any of that stuff that people have been going crazy over. Undoubtedly, there will still be speculation and all sorts of anonymous sources full of mysterious references to documents that we will never see, but let's say that there is no actual evidence.

Now say that despite this lack of evidence, political machines manage to turn these accusation into an impeachment and boot Trump from office (this is hypothetical, so don't ask me to explain how).

At that point, do you celebrate Trump being gone? Or do you protest the corrupt and underhanded method by which it happened?

I wanna say that's a HUUUUGE "IFF". However, we all know that people all over our great land end up in prison on *Trumped Up* charges, indeed, even FALSE (in hindsight) charges that never are substantiated, or are later proven totally wrong.
(No, wait.....that's just Black folks. Poor black folks, mostly. Rich white guys? NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.)

Now, IFFF that might EVER happen, that he's doing time for what were *Trumped Up* charges, I'd feel exactly about HIM as I do OJ: he's being duly punished, even though the records indicate it's for something other than all The Real Iniquities he's guilty of--screwing contractors, bilking people, grabbing pussies, bad hair, etc., etc.

OK, I have a question. Say there's no evidence of Trump messing with the election or working with the Russians, or any of that stuff that people have been going crazy over. Undoubtedly, there will still be speculation and all sorts of anonymous sources full of mysterious references to documents that we will never see, but let's say that there is no actual evidence.

Now say that despite this lack of evidence, political machines manage to turn these accusation into an impeachment and boot Trump from office (this is hypothetical, so don't ask me to explain how).

At that point, do you celebrate Trump being gone? Or do you protest the corrupt and underhanded method by which it happened?

There's no political machine that can impeach Trump that will without (from this week on) damning evidence of misdeads presented by the special counsel's investigation. At least on the Russian matter. Trump can still go off in some other way that causes Republicans in the house to draft articles of impeachment. I would like to say how unlikely that is but you never know with Donald Trump. It's impossible to predict what he will or will not do and what the subsequent fallout of something Donald Trump could do might be.

As far as what ifs around there not being any there, there? I think many people have suggested that Trump's resistance and reactions to further and prolonged investigations on Russia might very well be blindly based on his insecurities over being perceived as somehow not having won the White House on his own. That it's all a Democratic effort to discredit his victory and de-legitimize his presidency. And that he, and this is the blindly part, with no perception of proper boundaries for a president has trampled into many potentially impeachable areas just out of his own personal insecurities. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable scenario actually.

But... the cover up, as they say, is always worse than the crime. And in this case, the cover up might be all there really is. In a fair and just Washington, it really should be all that's needed to remove Donald Trump from office. Fair and square. Comey's notes, as we've all heard, are, like any FBI agents contemporaneous notes, taken as having a high evidentiary value. Those notes show a president clearly attempting to improperly influence an FBI investigation into his campaign. And he admitted that his firing of Comey was based on Comey's FBI investigation of the Trump campaign. His spokesperson, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said that they, the White House, hoped for a speedy resolution of the FBI investigation and that their dismissal of Comey was something they hope would help that to happen.

Stunningly stupid admissions that completely back-up Comey's notes and the concerns he's voiced through associates of a president attempting to influence him to drop the Russian investigation. We would and should celebrate the removal of office of a president who does just these things and nothing more.

So... your hypothetical is what exactly? That we should assume for a second that all of this stuff that actually happened didn't happen? I don't understand. If Trump hadn't done all of this stuff and was being railroaded out of Washington without justification? No that wouldn't be something to celebrate.

One thing that is admittedly super-weird in all of this is the blistering pace of events. This stuff took years during Watergate. But that's Trump. Trump has had his foot on the accelerator while crashing through so many norms and proprieties that it's been hard for anyone to keep track of it all. So we're already talking about impeachment and the place hasn't even been properly staffed up yet. Nor will it ever be, I predict.

The real problem is that, instead of making America great again, something many people quite honestly hoped he could do, Trump remains, as long as he is in office, an existential threat to liberty and justice and many other more specific linchpins of the American political system. He threatens a free press. He is actively attempting to brush aside long-established independence between the White House and FBI, something that would leave essentially nothing with any teeth in it that has political independence that could check this, or any subsequent, White House's actions.

So... again... not saying there's any actual collusion with Russia, etc. There's already IMO enough in the public record to warrant or justify Trump being removed from office. I suggest that if the investigation only turns up what we already KNOW, confirms it through Comey's notes, and supporting materials like public statements and like... confirming through testimony whether Trump DID ask the VP and AG to leave the room before talking one-on-one to Comey, etc. that this would be enough to remove Trump from office.

So what corrupt and underhanded methods are you referring to? What's YOUR evidence of anything like that happening? What's your reasons, for example, for thinking Robert Mueller might participate in any corrupt and underhanded methods that would result in the removal from office of the President of the United States?

OK, I have a question. Say there's no evidence of Trump messing with the election or working with the Russians, or any of that stuff that people have been going crazy over. Undoubtedly, there will still be speculation and all sorts of anonymous sources full of mysterious references to documents that we will never see, but let's say that there is no actual evidence.

Now say that despite this lack of evidence, political machines manage to turn these accusation into an impeachment and boot Trump from office (this is hypothetical, so don't ask me to explain how).

At that point, do you celebrate Trump being gone? Or do you protest the corrupt and underhanded method by which it happened?

There's no political machine that can impeach Trump that will without (from this week on) damning evidence of misdeads presented by the special counsel's investigation. At least on the Russian matter. Trump can still go off in some other way that causes Republicans in the house to draft articles of impeachment. I would like to say how unlikely that is but you never know with Donald Trump. It's impossible to predict what he will or will not do and what the subsequent fallout of something Donald Trump could do might be.

As far as what ifs around there not being any there, there? I think many people have suggested that Trump's resistance and reactions to further and prolonged investigations on Russia might very well be blindly based on his insecurities over being perceived as somehow not having won the White House on his own. That it's all a Democratic effort to discredit his victory and de-legitimize his presidency. And that he, and this is the blindly part, with no perception of proper boundaries for a president has trampled into many potentially impeachable areas just out of his own personal insecurities. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable scenario actually.

But... the cover up, as they say, is always worse than the crime. And in this case, the cover up might be all there really is. In a fair and just Washington, it really should be all that's needed to remove Donald Trump from office. Fair and square. Comey's notes, as we've all heard, are, like any FBI agents contemporaneous notes, taken as having a high evidentiary value. Those notes show a president clearly attempting to improperly influence an FBI investigation into his campaign. And he admitted that his firing of Comey was based on Comey's FBI investigation of the Trump campaign. His spokesperson, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said that they, the White House, hoped for a speedy resolution of the FBI investigation and that their dismissal of Comey was something they hope would help that to happen.

Stunningly stupid admissions that completely back-up Comey's notes and the concerns he's voiced through associates of a president attempting to influence him to drop the Russian investigation. We would and should celebrate the removal of office of a president who does just these things and nothing more.

So... your hypothetical is what exactly? That we should assume for a second that all of this stuff that actually happened didn't happen? I don't understand. If Trump hadn't done all of this stuff and was being railroaded out of Washington without justification? No that wouldn't be something to celebrate.

One thing that is admittedly super-weird in all of this is the blistering pace of events. This stuff took years during Watergate. But that's Trump. Trump has had his foot on the accelerator while crashing through so many norms and proprieties that it's been hard for anyone to keep track of it all. So we're already talking about impeachment and the place hasn't even been properly staffed up yet. Nor will it ever be, I predict.

The real problem is that, instead of making America great again, something many people quite honestly hoped he could do, Trump remains, as long as he is in office, an existential threat to liberty and justice and many other more specific linchpins of the American political system. He threatens a free press. He is actively attempting to brush aside long-established independence between the White House and FBI, something that would leave essentially nothing with any teeth in it that has political independence that could check this, or any subsequent, White House's actions.

So... again... not saying there's any actual collusion with Russia, etc. There's already IMO enough in the public record to warrant or justify Trump being removed from office. I suggest that if the investigation only turns up what we already KNOW, confirms it through Comey's notes, and supporting materials like public statements and like... confirming through testimony whether Trump DID ask the VP and AG to leave the room before talking one-on-one to Comey, etc. that this would be enough to remove Trump from office.

So what corrupt and underhanded methods are you referring to? What's YOUR evidence of anything like that happening? What's your reasons, for example, for thinking Robert Mueller might participate in any corrupt and underhanded methods that would result in the removal from office of the President of the United States?

I'm basically just asking if evidence actually matters anymore, or if it's more important to get rid of someone that you don't like.

The fact is that at this point, there is no evidence to suggest that Trump actually tried to interfere with an investigation. We say "Comey's notes" are third-hand tellings from anonymous "sources", based on documents that may or may not exist, about an event that possibly didn't even happen, and if it did, could have been a completely innocent comment.

Basically, at this point, they're as relevant as a figment of a reporter's imagination. We can't even take them into consideration, because we can't even see what they actually say.

I'm sure that Trump's not happy about it. I'm sure that he's tired of the Democrats and the press trying to discredit his election (which they're absolutely doing). And I think that Trump and his team need to work on their communication, because they often contradict each other. People who need to be in the loop don't seem to be in the loop. I get that Trump has no love for the press, and I don't blame him, but he needs to have a coherent message for the American people. Right now, he doesn't.

That said, I don't think that Comey's firing is the smoking gun that people are hoping for. The man was bad at his job and deserved to be fired a long time ago.

The Comey Memo is significant, as long as it exists. And I can't imagine that it doesn't. There would be no reason for agents to leak it if it didn't, as it is a tangible piece of evidence that can be subpoenaed.

There are politics at play in this, which is why a credible independent council was so important. Now they can come up with a determination of what happened, what they feel they can "prove", and to what degree they feel they can prove it.

Removal of a president through the Articles of Impeachment would require so many votes that it is not going to happen without at least a preponderance of the evidence supporting the claims, and almost certainly a much higher standard.

As to Comey's firing, yes he was bad at his job, and yes he deserved to be fired a long time ago, but the question of why he was fired now is also key. Trump admitting that he was fired over "this Russia thing" combined with his reported attempts to pressure Comey over the investigation and demand loyalty from him makes the firing a key component in the larger picture. It is not in and of itself a smoking gun, but it sure as hell is a major red flag.

I'm basically just asking if evidence actually matters anymore, or if it's more important to get rid of someone that you don't like.

I think that the ability to "prove" a crime is not essential to our democracy. The rules behind impeachment set a bar so high that it is insanely hard to overcome it. Not only do you need a majority in the House to support issuing the Articles of Impeachment, you need a 2/3 majority in the Senate to actually remove the president.

Just think about how unpopular or dangerous a president would have to be to actually meet that bar without clear-cut evidence of actual wrong doing. Not only would they have to have people of their own party supporting their removal, but the president would have to be so unpopular amongst the voters that the Senate would feel their jobs still safe if they followed through.

I would argue that a president that unpopular across such a wide and diverse group of people probably should be removed, even if the pretense was questionable.

Obviously, it's important at this point to have a side-bar here about the Director of the FBI and under what circumstances HE should be removed from his office. That job comes with a ten-year term, precisely to de-politicalize the position from those who, for political reasons, think he or she is doing a bad job. You two here don't know whether Comey was doing a good, bad, or fair job as FBI director.

People have come to that negative conclusion based on a few incidents where the director's decisions and the outcomes of those decisions were disfavorable to your political side or, in pilight's case, you observed these actions and considered them as being inappropriate or improperly political.

But you can't remove him from his job for those reasons. He can, it appears very rightly, claim his actions were not taken out of any desire to venture into the political realm but were done to provide congress with a more accurate up-to-the-minute report on the status of an investigation as it had changed. Bad call or not, firing the director of the FBI for those reasons would be venturing yourself into the area of doing it or advocating it be done out of a political motivation. But we know that people who supported Hillary Clinton wanted Comey's ten-year term to be ended for exactly this reason. That's improper.

And, of course, Trump wanted him out for Trump's reasons, which the investigation will make clear. But Trump's reasons will also be for political reasons.

Which proves once again something I've said many times. People suck. Guitars are better.

People of either political stripe here (here meaning in DC, in the case of Comey) would have been so happy to take a shit on the idea of an independent FBI. And let us take that shit for the historical record. Dems would have been clammoring for Comey's ouster had Hillary won. If it had to happen we're all very lucky that it was done by Trump rather than Hillary, and for what are already blatantly improper reasons for which he and his administration will pay a dear and historic price. That's all good. Apparently, presidents need a firm reminder every once in a while of the consequences of these kinds of improprieties.

Today we're hearing that Trump told the Russian ambassador during the infamous Oval Office meeting the day after Comey's firing that the removal of the 'nut job' Comey will relieve the pressure on the Russian investigation. Again, a bombshell that, if it can be proven, should alone be enough to warrant Trump being forced out of office.

And, it's being reported that a very senior WH official is under focus in the investigation as having colluded with the Russians. I say that person could very likely be Jared Kushner and that would explain Trump burning down his White House in order to try to stop an investigation that could destroy his family.

Lastly, pilight, we will eventually find out the evidence or proof that's been uncovered. The special counsel will have to, I think, present a detailed record of the investigation's actions, findings, evidence uncovered, all the testimony given and a conclusion. I think so anyway.

OK, I have a question. Say there's no evidence of Trump messing with the election or working with the Russians, or any of that stuff that people have been going crazy over. Undoubtedly, there will still be speculation and all sorts of anonymous sources full of mysterious references to documents that we will never see, but let's say that there is no actual evidence.

Now say that despite this lack of evidence, political machines manage to turn these accusation into an impeachment and boot Trump from office (this is hypothetical, so don't ask me to explain how).

At that point, do you celebrate Trump being gone? Or do you protest the corrupt and underhanded method by which it happened?

There's no political machine that can impeach Trump that will without (from this week on) damning evidence of misdeads presented by the special counsel's investigation. At least on the Russian matter. Trump can still go off in some other way that causes Republicans in the house to draft articles of impeachment. I would like to say how unlikely that is but you never know with Donald Trump. It's impossible to predict what he will or will not do and what the subsequent fallout of something Donald Trump could do might be.

As far as what ifs around there not being any there, there? I think many people have suggested that Trump's resistance and reactions to further and prolonged investigations on Russia might very well be blindly based on his insecurities over being perceived as somehow not having won the White House on his own. That it's all a Democratic effort to discredit his victory and de-legitimize his presidency. And that he, and this is the blindly part, with no perception of proper boundaries for a president has trampled into many potentially impeachable areas just out of his own personal insecurities. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable scenario actually.

But... the cover up, as they say, is always worse than the crime. And in this case, the cover up might be all there really is. In a fair and just Washington, it really should be all that's needed to remove Donald Trump from office. Fair and square. Comey's notes, as we've all heard, are, like any FBI agents contemporaneous notes, taken as having a high evidentiary value. Those notes show a president clearly attempting to improperly influence an FBI investigation into his campaign. And he admitted that his firing of Comey was based on Comey's FBI investigation of the Trump campaign. His spokesperson, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said that they, the White House, hoped for a speedy resolution of the FBI investigation and that their dismissal of Comey was something they hope would help that to happen.

Stunningly stupid admissions that completely back-up Comey's notes and the concerns he's voiced through associates of a president attempting to influence him to drop the Russian investigation. We would and should celebrate the removal of office of a president who does just these things and nothing more.

So... your hypothetical is what exactly? That we should assume for a second that all of this stuff that actually happened didn't happen? I don't understand. If Trump hadn't done all of this stuff and was being railroaded out of Washington without justification? No that wouldn't be something to celebrate.

One thing that is admittedly super-weird in all of this is the blistering pace of events. This stuff took years during Watergate. But that's Trump. Trump has had his foot on the accelerator while crashing through so many norms and proprieties that it's been hard for anyone to keep track of it all. So we're already talking about impeachment and the place hasn't even been properly staffed up yet. Nor will it ever be, I predict.

The real problem is that, instead of making America great again, something many people quite honestly hoped he could do, Trump remains, as long as he is in office, an existential threat to liberty and justice and many other more specific linchpins of the American political system. He threatens a free press. He is actively attempting to brush aside long-established independence between the White House and FBI, something that would leave essentially nothing with any teeth in it that has political independence that could check this, or any subsequent, White House's actions.

So... again... not saying there's any actual collusion with Russia, etc. There's already IMO enough in the public record to warrant or justify Trump being removed from office. I suggest that if the investigation only turns up what we already KNOW, confirms it through Comey's notes, and supporting materials like public statements and like... confirming through testimony whether Trump DID ask the VP and AG to leave the room before talking one-on-one to Comey, etc. that this would be enough to remove Trump from office.

So what corrupt and underhanded methods are you referring to? What's YOUR evidence of anything like that happening? What's your reasons, for example, for thinking Robert Mueller might participate in any corrupt and underhanded methods that would result in the removal from office of the President of the United States?

I'm basically just asking if evidence actually matters anymore, or if it's more important to get rid of someone that you don't like.

The fact is that at this point, there is no evidence to suggest that Trump actually tried to interfere with an investigation. We say "Comey's notes" are third-hand tellings from anonymous "sources", based on documents that may or may not exist, about an event that possibly didn't even happen, and if it did, could have been a completely innocent comment.

Basically, at this point, they're as relevant as a figment of a reporter's imagination. We can't even take them into consideration, because we can't even see what they actually say.

I'm sure that Trump's not happy about it. I'm sure that he's tired of the Democrats and the press trying to discredit his election (which they're absolutely doing). And I think that Trump and his team need to work on their communication, because they often contradict each other. People who need to be in the loop don't seem to be in the loop. I get that Trump has no love for the press, and I don't blame him, but he needs to have a coherent message for the American people. Right now, he doesn't.

That said, I don't think that Comey's firing is the smoking gun that people are hoping for. The man was bad at his job and deserved to be fired a long time ago.

CNN/ORC right before the Comey firing, had Trump with 85% approval among Republicans. They worded it a bunch of different ways, and I don't know why they picked that specific # over the 3 or 4 others they had. I want to see their next results using the same methods.

Since the firing, Gallup has Trump at 84% among Republicans. Reuters Ipsos has Trump at 75% with Republicans. They all use differing techniques, so they're more consistent within their own system.

why do people seem to be forgetting that it was not Comey who released the letter about the 'new' emails on Weiner's computer. it was @JasonintheHouse, aka Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who felt the need to leak it to the press.

why do people seem to be forgetting that it was not Comey who released the letter about the 'new' emails on Weiner's computer. it was @JasonintheHouse, aka Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who felt the need to leak it to the press.

Because Chaffetz didn't "leak" it. A leak is when someone shares something that they are not allowed to share. It was well within Chaffetz's authority to release that information to the press. A Democrat would have quickly released it as well if it had been about a Republican candidate. Heck, we see Democrats doing it right now with the Trump investigation.

That being the case, the blame falls on Comey, who had to know that such a briefing was going to be made public. It needed to be part of his calculus as he decided whether or not to write that letter to congress at that time.

why do people seem to be forgetting that it was not Comey who released the letter about the 'new' emails on Weiner's computer. it was @JasonintheHouse, aka Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who felt the need to leak it to the press.

Because Chaffetz didn't "leak" it. A leak is when someone shares something that they are not allowed to share. It was well within Chaffetz's authority to release that information to the press. A Democrat would have quickly released it as well if it had been about a Republican candidate. Heck, we see Democrats doing it right now with the Trump investigation.

That being the case, the blame falls on Comey, who had to know that such a briefing was going to be made public. It needed to be part of his calculus as he decided whether or not to write that letter to congress at that time.

surely, you're not saying Chaffetz had the right/duty to reveal info Comey had marked 'classified'?

why do people seem to be forgetting that it was not Comey who released the letter about the 'new' emails on Weiner's computer. it was @JasonintheHouse, aka Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who felt the need to leak it to the press.

Because Chaffetz didn't "leak" it. A leak is when someone shares something that they are not allowed to share. It was well within Chaffetz's authority to release that information to the press. A Democrat would have quickly released it as well if it had been about a Republican candidate. Heck, we see Democrats doing it right now with the Trump investigation.

That being the case, the blame falls on Comey, who had to know that such a briefing was going to be made public. It needed to be part of his calculus as he decided whether or not to write that letter to congress at that time.

surely, you're not saying Chaffetz had the right/duty to reveal info Comey had marked 'classified'?

The letter he wrote to congress saying that new evidence had come up in the email investigation was not classified.

There is a hyper-partisan group that is trying to make an ethics claim about it (claiming that releasing the letter jeopardized an ongoing investigation) but that complaint is not going to go anywhere, as the claim is pretty far-fetched and Chaffetz was well within his authority to release it.

Comey absolutely knew and understood that if you send that letter to Congress it will be public within a matter of hours, if not minutes. It was never expected to be kept secret. If he didn't want it public, he wouldn't have sent it.

Comey demonstrated his acumen at manipulating the system during the domestic surveillance standoff. While I'm sympathetic to his motives there, he nonetheless proved himself a master fixer and Washington schemer.

This is a really interesting look into the idea of impeachment, and a general thought experiment around all the factors. Specifically, Silver is looking at the Vegas betting odds going on right now (even money odds of him not finishing his term) and considering where the smart money would lie.

It is pretty in-depth and well considered, including a historical look at how "high crimes" has been legally defined in the past and how that could potentially spell trouble for Trump.

Wow, four US presidents have been assassinated. 4 died of natural causes. Trump is an overweight 70 year old who doesn't exercise and is said to have a fondness for fast food, so natural causes death can't be ruled out.

Wow, four US presidents have been assassinated. 4 died of natural causes. Trump is an overweight 70 year old who doesn't exercise and is said to have a fondness for fast food, so natural causes death can't be ruled out.

More often than not it was a cover up that got the person of interest into a whole hell of legal shit than the actual allegations. I shall reserve my judgment about what will happen to Trump and his minions just to say this there is enough evidence to investigate and proving it or not is why they investigate. The reason for an investigation is to reach a conclusion on an allegation not start with a conclusion and then prove it.

_________________Cave Canem!
We must listen to each other no matter how much it hurts. Bishop Desmond Tutu.

Last edited by Oldfandepot2 on 05/30/17 6:08 am; edited 4 times in total

The White House on Friday refused to rule out the possibility of Trump invoking his presidential powers to block Comey’s testimony.

So, my fine Legal Experts, how is THIS even remotely possible??? I can understand Executive Privilege keeping Trump from being coerced to testify, but.....anyone he talked to can be prevented from speaking???

The White House on Friday refused to rule out the possibility of Trump invoking his presidential powers to block Comey’s testimony.

So, my fine Legal Experts, how is THIS even remotely possible??? I can understand Executive Privilege keeping Trump from being coerced to testify, but.....anyone he talked to can be prevented from speaking???

I believe it is because Comey was talking with Trump as part of his job in the executive branch.